It seems like a match made in epic movie heaven. Wonderful actors in the cast like Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed, Rod Steiger, and John Gielgud. Directed by Moustapha Akkad, who did a marvelous job with "The Message". Music by Maurice Jarre, famous for doing the soundtracks of classics such as "Lawrence of Arabia", "Doctor Zhivago", "The Longest Day", and countless others. A large budget. Sweeping sets. Hundreds of extras. What could possibly go wrong? As this film shows, sadly, quite a bit can go wrong. But a lot can go right as well.
Let's talk first about what went right.
"Lion of the Desert" is a film funded by Libyan during the time when it was still under the command of Muammar "We Came, We Saw, He Died" Gaddafi. It tells the story of Omar al-Mukhtar, the titular Lion of the Desert, who fought against the Italians during both Italo-Senussi Wars in Libya. It follows his struggle from the time when Italy appointed General Rodolfo Graziani until his eventually capture and execution. It also showcases the concentration camps employed by Italy against the Bedouin. As an epic film, this movie certainly delivers. Battle scenes are epic on the level of "Lawrence of Arabia". All the sets, such as Mussolini's headquarters and the Libyan camps, are sweeping and massive, and do a good job capturing the larger than life story. The uniforms also seem accurate (although I'm sure someone out there can correct me), and it's near to see a film about a particular era and conflict that you rarely get to see portrayed on film.
Acting overall is also wonderful. Anthony Quinn does a good job as Mukhtar, and from what I heard he actually traveled around Libya and studied how their old men acted to see just how he could best imitate the Bedouin leader. Oliver Reed must have thought the film was made of gum, because he chews just about every scene he's in - but with the character, it certainly works. Rod Steiger, though only in a few scenes, does a good job playing Mussolini. Even minor actors do a wonderful job in their roles. Sadly, the acting in this film also leads into one of its major problems, but I'll get to that later.
The editing and use of music is also very commendable. The greatest, and most powerful, example of this is seen with the film's handling of the concentration camps. You see the suffering of the Bedouin, and see carts full of dead bodies moving between the tents. Suddenly, the film cuts to black and white stock footage of the camps. Maurice Jarre's music reaches a shrill right at that very moment. It's like the film is jolting you away from the actors and sets and props, and dropping you right into history. It's like the film is telling you, "No, really, this happened. It's not just in a movie. People truly suffered and died." It's perhaps one of the best handlings of a people's suffering put to film. I dare say it's even more powerful than a lot of cinematic handlings of the Holocaust. I could feel my heart skipping a beat, and feel my blood turn cold, as I watched that scene.
Now... let's talk about what went wrong.
As I said before, acting overall is well done... but there's a catch to that. Reed is over the top and conniving as Graziani, while Quinn is way too reserved and moral as Mukhtar. As a result, Graziani comes across as a bigger player in the story, while Mukhtar mostly just lumbers around and reacts to what Graziani does. In fact, some of the best lines of the film come not from Mukhtar, but from Graziani. ("Look... the mice... they could never resist the cheese, could they?") As the film progressed, I found myself ironically becoming more attached to Graziani than I did Mukhtar. It reminded me of a complaint a lot of people had for the Kevin Costner "Robin Hood": Alan Rickman's sheriff was so much more memorable and well acted than Costner's Robin that the audience ends up feeling more connected with the villain than the hero. I had no reason to feel connected to Mukhtar other than he's the nominal hero of the story, and well, I have to like him then, right? Because he's "the good guy". But that's all he has going for him. Even when Graziani begins to attack Kufra, Mukhtar's response is basically "Meh" and lets Graziani takes the city. Again, because Reed's Graziani has more personality and flair than Quinn's Mukhtar, you end up wishing that the movie was more about the Italian than the Bedouin.
Another problem is the film's pacing. While the film starts out well, the story starts to becomes really episodic. Graziani does something. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to that too. Rinse and repeat. I grew up watching films like "Gettysburg" and "Lawrence of Arabia", so a film's long length doesn't bug me... but at some point even I found myself getting BORED with the film. It also got annoying, because it felt like every time they battled, some of Mukhtar's men would die off like he was about to be defeated... but JUST ENOUGH would survive to keep the film going. Again, this happens over and over and over and over. At some point I could hear Elaine from Seinfeld yelling in a movie theater at Mukhtar, "Just get captured already!!" Because this film is so long, this results in the viewing being something of a chore. This is also rather unnecessary, as a lot of the planning Graziani does was, in real life, done much quicker than as portrayed in the film. (For example, he set up the fence between Libya and Egypt shortly after he took command.) Obviously they were wanting to drag the film out a bit longer than this would have made it, but, as I pointed out, this ends up hurting it.
Some of the battle scenes are also incredibly goofy. Italian soldiers are basically one step above Storm Troopers, with the only difference between the Italians manage to land a few shots. While I know the Italian military has a rather bad reputation in the World Wars, this film takes it to a whole new level. This reaches a climax at the part where Mukhtar tricks the Italian tanks into parking in an area filled with detonated mines. This plan only works because the script says it does, because the whole set up is waaaaaay too convenient: Mukhtar and his men just happened to know WHERE the tanks would drive, and EXACTLY where they would stop, and the fact that they even WOULD stop, and Mukhtar's men happened to plant all the mines EXACTLY where the tanks would be parked... Yeah, if it sounds really absurd, that's because it is. The whole scene seemed to exist only because Gaddafi wanted a few more exploding vehicles in his movie.
This comes to the biggest problem, which is the film's clear bias. It's well known that this was funded by the Libyan government, and well... it definitely shows. Italians are portrayed as overly evil, with no good in them save for perhaps three characters. (One of whom gets shot by his fellow Italians for liking the Libyans too much.) I'm not saying the Italians DIDN'T do anything bad in the war, mind you (remember several paragraphs ago I was commending the film for its portrayal of the concentration camps), but this film looks at one side's evil way too much while portraying the other side as near innocent. You don't get to hear about how Italian farmers were being attacked and murdered by Libyan guerillas, which was one of the reasons why the Italian government wanted the war ended so quickly. You don't get to hear about how Mukhtar actually agreed to make peace with the Italians, then broke that agreement once his men got enough weapons and supplies. You just get to watch Italian troops entering villages and killing civilians. (In fact, this is really the only time you ever see Italian soldiers doing well in battle... when they're up against unarmed civilians.) Even the Battle of Kufra, which was actually a major strategic and tactical achievement for the Italian military, and quite a show of brilliance from Graziani, is mostly portrayed as another chance to show how mean the Italians are. As most people know, this film was banned in Italy for a long time, due to heavy criticism from Italians against it, and... well... I really can't blame the Italians on this one.
This film is definitely a one time viewing. It certainly covers a larger than life story, and does so with enough positive traits to keep you interested. Sadly, it's negatives hurt it far more than they would in other films. I would recommend it to those interested in seeing epic films like this... just remember that Gaddafi foot the bill.
Let's talk first about what went right.
"Lion of the Desert" is a film funded by Libyan during the time when it was still under the command of Muammar "We Came, We Saw, He Died" Gaddafi. It tells the story of Omar al-Mukhtar, the titular Lion of the Desert, who fought against the Italians during both Italo-Senussi Wars in Libya. It follows his struggle from the time when Italy appointed General Rodolfo Graziani until his eventually capture and execution. It also showcases the concentration camps employed by Italy against the Bedouin. As an epic film, this movie certainly delivers. Battle scenes are epic on the level of "Lawrence of Arabia". All the sets, such as Mussolini's headquarters and the Libyan camps, are sweeping and massive, and do a good job capturing the larger than life story. The uniforms also seem accurate (although I'm sure someone out there can correct me), and it's near to see a film about a particular era and conflict that you rarely get to see portrayed on film.
Acting overall is also wonderful. Anthony Quinn does a good job as Mukhtar, and from what I heard he actually traveled around Libya and studied how their old men acted to see just how he could best imitate the Bedouin leader. Oliver Reed must have thought the film was made of gum, because he chews just about every scene he's in - but with the character, it certainly works. Rod Steiger, though only in a few scenes, does a good job playing Mussolini. Even minor actors do a wonderful job in their roles. Sadly, the acting in this film also leads into one of its major problems, but I'll get to that later.
The editing and use of music is also very commendable. The greatest, and most powerful, example of this is seen with the film's handling of the concentration camps. You see the suffering of the Bedouin, and see carts full of dead bodies moving between the tents. Suddenly, the film cuts to black and white stock footage of the camps. Maurice Jarre's music reaches a shrill right at that very moment. It's like the film is jolting you away from the actors and sets and props, and dropping you right into history. It's like the film is telling you, "No, really, this happened. It's not just in a movie. People truly suffered and died." It's perhaps one of the best handlings of a people's suffering put to film. I dare say it's even more powerful than a lot of cinematic handlings of the Holocaust. I could feel my heart skipping a beat, and feel my blood turn cold, as I watched that scene.
Now... let's talk about what went wrong.
As I said before, acting overall is well done... but there's a catch to that. Reed is over the top and conniving as Graziani, while Quinn is way too reserved and moral as Mukhtar. As a result, Graziani comes across as a bigger player in the story, while Mukhtar mostly just lumbers around and reacts to what Graziani does. In fact, some of the best lines of the film come not from Mukhtar, but from Graziani. ("Look... the mice... they could never resist the cheese, could they?") As the film progressed, I found myself ironically becoming more attached to Graziani than I did Mukhtar. It reminded me of a complaint a lot of people had for the Kevin Costner "Robin Hood": Alan Rickman's sheriff was so much more memorable and well acted than Costner's Robin that the audience ends up feeling more connected with the villain than the hero. I had no reason to feel connected to Mukhtar other than he's the nominal hero of the story, and well, I have to like him then, right? Because he's "the good guy". But that's all he has going for him. Even when Graziani begins to attack Kufra, Mukhtar's response is basically "Meh" and lets Graziani takes the city. Again, because Reed's Graziani has more personality and flair than Quinn's Mukhtar, you end up wishing that the movie was more about the Italian than the Bedouin.
Another problem is the film's pacing. While the film starts out well, the story starts to becomes really episodic. Graziani does something. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to that too. Rinse and repeat. I grew up watching films like "Gettysburg" and "Lawrence of Arabia", so a film's long length doesn't bug me... but at some point even I found myself getting BORED with the film. It also got annoying, because it felt like every time they battled, some of Mukhtar's men would die off like he was about to be defeated... but JUST ENOUGH would survive to keep the film going. Again, this happens over and over and over and over. At some point I could hear Elaine from Seinfeld yelling in a movie theater at Mukhtar, "Just get captured already!!" Because this film is so long, this results in the viewing being something of a chore. This is also rather unnecessary, as a lot of the planning Graziani does was, in real life, done much quicker than as portrayed in the film. (For example, he set up the fence between Libya and Egypt shortly after he took command.) Obviously they were wanting to drag the film out a bit longer than this would have made it, but, as I pointed out, this ends up hurting it.
Some of the battle scenes are also incredibly goofy. Italian soldiers are basically one step above Storm Troopers, with the only difference between the Italians manage to land a few shots. While I know the Italian military has a rather bad reputation in the World Wars, this film takes it to a whole new level. This reaches a climax at the part where Mukhtar tricks the Italian tanks into parking in an area filled with detonated mines. This plan only works because the script says it does, because the whole set up is waaaaaay too convenient: Mukhtar and his men just happened to know WHERE the tanks would drive, and EXACTLY where they would stop, and the fact that they even WOULD stop, and Mukhtar's men happened to plant all the mines EXACTLY where the tanks would be parked... Yeah, if it sounds really absurd, that's because it is. The whole scene seemed to exist only because Gaddafi wanted a few more exploding vehicles in his movie.
This comes to the biggest problem, which is the film's clear bias. It's well known that this was funded by the Libyan government, and well... it definitely shows. Italians are portrayed as overly evil, with no good in them save for perhaps three characters. (One of whom gets shot by his fellow Italians for liking the Libyans too much.) I'm not saying the Italians DIDN'T do anything bad in the war, mind you (remember several paragraphs ago I was commending the film for its portrayal of the concentration camps), but this film looks at one side's evil way too much while portraying the other side as near innocent. You don't get to hear about how Italian farmers were being attacked and murdered by Libyan guerillas, which was one of the reasons why the Italian government wanted the war ended so quickly. You don't get to hear about how Mukhtar actually agreed to make peace with the Italians, then broke that agreement once his men got enough weapons and supplies. You just get to watch Italian troops entering villages and killing civilians. (In fact, this is really the only time you ever see Italian soldiers doing well in battle... when they're up against unarmed civilians.) Even the Battle of Kufra, which was actually a major strategic and tactical achievement for the Italian military, and quite a show of brilliance from Graziani, is mostly portrayed as another chance to show how mean the Italians are. As most people know, this film was banned in Italy for a long time, due to heavy criticism from Italians against it, and... well... I really can't blame the Italians on this one.
This film is definitely a one time viewing. It certainly covers a larger than life story, and does so with enough positive traits to keep you interested. Sadly, it's negatives hurt it far more than they would in other films. I would recommend it to those interested in seeing epic films like this... just remember that Gaddafi foot the bill.